All ecosystems are in need of renewal and revival. Christian ecosystems especially.  And I believe a marker of both renewal and revival is a brave commitment to flush out the toxins within a system whatever the personal cost to you, or the relational ties to others. We need to heed the words of 1Peter 5.

Arcissist NOT Narcissist
I received a lot of feedback concerning my recent post on the difference between  what I now term”‘arcissists” and “narcissists”.
There were a few minor quibbles over why we have such a therapeutic culture, and a concern that the term “narcissist” is overused (hint: it is!). But the term “arcissist? Well it seems to fit the presenting issues I am talking about.
Okay, so the bloke (and it’s usually a bloke) might not be full blown narcissist, but he’s got a nasty habit of shredding and bullying anyone in his orbit who dares to challenge him. Or even if they don’t dare to challenge him.
The “arcissist” has a keen radar on everyone else’s issues, and very little on their own. They will pick and pick at your supposed sinfulness, but their rampant bad behaviour? They are – as I have heard it said – just being a little bit grumpy.
And there is a reason for that. In fact there are a number of reasons. The first reason of course is the lack of emotional intelligence in the arcissist themselves. Or perhaps – in theological terms – the presence of ongoing sin that hardens them and deceives them as to their true behaviour.
Arcissistic Ecosystems
But the arcissist is not the primary problem. “What?” I hear you say!, “How can that be?”  Simply this: Bullying leaders would not be able to do what they do unless they are at the centre of an ecosystem that at the very least permits their behaviour by turning a blind eye, or encourages it by being the gatekeeper against all criticism.
In other words the arcissist needs an ecosystem in order to first survive and then to thrive. The behaviour and the overlooking of it by others, is reinforcing.
In all ecosystems there are macro and micro participants that keep the system going. So naturally this is also the case in the arcissistic ecosystem. Let’s unpack the macro participants today and see what the wider issues are, and we will look at the micro participants in the next post.
Macro: The Culture “Out There”
Throughout history the primary problem in churches has been the infestation of “out there”  values “in here”. In other words the conformity to the world that infects the church. And it’s true of the arcissistic ecosystem as well.
When it comes to church ecosystems the wider culture has too often been allowed to set the tone. Now in a sense this has always been an issue for the church, and it presents in different ways at different times in history.
But in our current time, with its celebrity focus, and its oft-uncritical default commitment to impressiveness over integrity,  and its desire to “get stuff done”, this problem has ramped up. All sorts of arcisissts are not only excused, but feted by church ecosystems. And it is having consequences.
When we see the secular world  give oxygen to self-purposing, self-focussed and selfish behaviours, then it stands to reason that the water from that ecosystem will leak into the church pond. Especially without good Biblical critique.
We have seen this in the recent past with examples such as Mark Driscoll’s increasing volatility and platform rants. His church put up with it because it aped the wider culture’s commitment to the apex leader who “gets things done”. He also held all of the cultural, if not formal, power within the ecosystem, making it almost impossible, or at least very costly, to bring about change.
That we keep coming around to this arcissistic  issue tells us that, unlike 3 John, in which the apostle calls out the toxic leadership of “Diotrophes, who likes to be first”, indicates we have not figured out how to solve it.
With failing attendances, weak leaders, and unclear direction, the modern day Diotrophes is, by contrast, seen as a strong decisive leader (and certainly thinks of himself as one, and is adulated as such by his followers).
But the fruit is so often bitter. The result is so often that other people are hurt and damaged in the process. The ends do not justify the means. It’s hard to see how we get to such leadership from following Christ. But hey, here we are!
Macro: The Culture “In Here”
Of course, just as Jerusalem at its worst back in the days of its idolatrous kings was not such much destroyed from without, as much as hollowed out from within, so too the church ecosystem. Arcissism, where it exists in wider church structures such as denominations, is too often tolerated – and often rewarded – by a system whose aim is to ensure its own survival first and foremost.
Church denominations have to examine themselves, and realise that their own structures may not only be implicitly encouraging such types of leaders, but that they may then be going out of their way to protect such leaders when they behave poorly (again).
There’s a myth that the likes of Driscoll got away with it – and continues to do so – because there are insufficient structures and leadership dynamics to stop him. He’s the biggest player in the house, the house that he himself built.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

God didn’t need anything from us, and yet he gave everything for us. Why? I. Don’t. Know. There’s no rationality to it. The gospel transcends reason. It blossoms high up in the ether of divine-human relationship. It draws us to worship, not to weigh and measure. True love can never be “this” for “that.” There is no transaction in true love, no giving for taking. All palms are always open. 

I was reading through a book manuscript the other day, and it was making me think of a previous article I wrote about Job (“Job and the Deadly Spiritual Equation”). The author of this manuscript made a point that, while I already knew it conceptually, still drew me into wonder. Here it is, in my own words: True love must be able to offer everything in exchange for nothing.
Stare at those words. Your impulse might be to agree with the statement immediately. But let the silt in your mind settle for a moment. Examine yourself in the context of one concrete relationship. How often do you act in self-interest with the guise of love? How many times do you do something for someone else without expecting to receive anything in return—no reciprocation, no delayed gratification, no ego stroke, no thanks? Can you show love to someone and at the same time be at peace with invisibility?
Relationships vs. Transactions
When we’re honest with ourselves, most acts of “love” are done with some hope, if not an outright expectation, of reciprocation. We may not think that the person we buy coffee for will return the favor, but we’ll at least get a “thank you,” right? I mean, that’s just common courtesy.
This approach to love is transactional. It sounds cold when we put it that way, as if expecting a “thank you” from someone is selfish and mechanistic on our part. I’m aware that we have social norms and that there is such a thing as common courtesy. That’s not really the question here. The question is whether love can be true if we feel slighted or jilted when we don’t receive some form of reciprocation, even a “thank you.” As I’ll suggest in a moment, I don’t think it can be true if that’s the case.
When our approach to love is what we might call relational (I elsewhere call this circular), our love serves a relationship, but that doesn’t necessitate reciprocity. True love is wanting the best for someone regardless of your involvement. In the context of your relationship with another, love says, “I want you to have this.” And here’s the key: The beloved may not even hear your voice or give ample recognition to your love. And that’s okay. You loved for their sake, not for yours. You love because, in your relationship, you want this person to go higher, and you’re content if that means you go lower, or go unnoticed altogether. Love is not love if it’s quid pro quo.
Job and God’s Love
Now, back to Job. This transactional vs. relational view of love is really at the heart of the book. In fact, it’s right at the beginning where Satan starts bad-mouthing this man whom God said was above reproach. Satan attacks Job twice. First he takes his property and family. Then he takes his health. What was his motive in both cases? To show that Job was really a transactional God-worshiper. Look at his two attacks.
9 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? 10 Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.”
Job 1:9-11
Read More
Related Posts:

The Scriptures use a series of descriptions to identify the Spirit. He is the Spirit of glory, truth, holiness, sonship—and much more (Rom. 1:4; Rom. 8:15; 1 Peter 4:14; 1 John 4:6). We should notice particularly how our Lord Jesus introduces the Spirit in Jesus’ Farewell Discourse in John 13–17. In essence, Jesus tells His disciples that the Spirit will be to them everything that He Himself has been during the course of His ministry. For while the Son and the Spirit are personally distinct, they are economically entwined.

Modern Bible translations are in the news these days, sometimes for controversial reasons. But one universal benefit of them is that the Holy Spirit is no longer referred to as “it.” Curiously a chief culprit here is the much-loved King James Version (for example, Romans 8:26: “the Spirit itself”).
In fact, pneuma (the Greek word for “spirit” or “wind”) is a neuter gender noun and therefore attracted a neuter pronoun, “it.” Still, John 14:26 and 15:26, which refer to the Spirit by the masculine pronoun “he” (ekeinos), left older Bible readers in no doubt about his personal nature: “he” not “it.” Whatever it means for human spirits, created as the image of God to be personal is rooted in the very being of their Creator. God is a personal being in a unified, uncreated, eternal, tri-personal manner—we in a created mono-personal manner. We are the tiny reflection; He is the great and glorious original. But what does Scripture mean when it speaks of God as Father, Son, and Spirit?
The Old Testament word for spirit, ruach, is onomatopoetic. That is, its meaning is echoed in its sound: wind in motion, sometimes storm-wind.
It lies on the surface of the Bible that the Holy Spirit is both divine and personal, as Acts 5:3–4 indicates. The Spirit can be lied to (a personal characteristic); to do so involves lying to God Himself (He is fully divine).
Yet there is something about this name (“Spirit”) that suggests the mysterious and elusive. Jesus Himself said that the pneuma blows where it wills, but we cannot tell where it comes from or goes to, and so it is with the pneuma of God (John 3:8). Are we not, therefore, treading on dangerous ground if we enquire further about the identity of the Spirit, especially when our Lord stressed that the Spirit does not glorify Himself (John 16:13–14)?
We cannot truly worship One we do not know, or experience “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” (2 Cor. 13:14) if He remains faceless. But how can we know Him when even His name lacks the personal atmosphere of either “Father” or “Son”?
Meditation on two aspects of the Bible’s teaching helps us here. Firstly, the Scriptures use a series of descriptions to identify the Spirit. He is the Spirit of glory, truth, holiness, sonship—and much more (Rom. 1:4; Rom. 8:15; 1 Peter 4:14; 1 John 4:6).
We should notice particularly how our Lord Jesus introduces the Spirit in Jesus’ Farewell Discourse in John 13–17. In essence, Jesus tells His disciples that the Spirit will be to them everything that He Himself has been during the course of His ministry. For while the Son and the Spirit are personally distinct, they are economically entwined. Jesus is Teacher, Guide, and Counselor; Jesus goes to prepare a home for His disciples (John 14:2).
Read More
Related Posts: